PUTTAMADAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this case are as follows:

(3.) THOUGH the learned State Public Prosecutor would seek to justify the findings of the court below, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the manner in which the alleged acts are said to have been committed by the appellant, is only on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, it is evident that Rashmi, who was the immediate victim of the alleged explosion of a fire cracker or injury that was caused to her, even according to her, that Rashmi would have been woken up from sleep and it was quite possible for the accused or the person who had thrown the cracker into the room to depart from the scene. Further, she had gathered her wits to immediately look out of the window and to observe the accused leaving the place also is not possible as it was 5 a.m., and possibly no sufficient light for her to have identified the accused.